UK Home Secretary - New web monitoring laws will stop killers like Ian Huntley

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

In a strategy that should now be very familiar to anyone who watched the Canadian government trying to intact similar laws the UK Home Secretary, after a backlash to new communications monitoring proposals, played the 'paedo card'.

Writing in the SUN newspaper, she said "Data like this has already helped lock away murderer Ian Huntley." For those unaware, the killer of two school girls in Soham Cambridgeshire some years ago.

Now the content of the proposals are not yet know, as no bill has been introduced and most of the media are guessing at the moment. We can now see the level the debate will take though. Anyone against this law are helping murders like Huntley.

The obvious question is if the existing laws were already successful in locking him up, why do we need new ones? Who are the people who got away because we did not have this new law before now?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4235448/Theresa-May-says-web-spies-will-trap-killers-like-Ian-Huntley.html

Captcha: Barking mad. Better believe it.....

Edit: For anyone who's interested.

Woodsey:
Petition here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32400

Edit: missed this gem quote: Mrs May insists: "I'm not willing to risk more terrorist plots succeeding and more paedophiles going free." Which successful terrorist plots (we've only had one) and which child abusers a going free?

I'm waiting for the day when the pass the law to have some git follow you around recording everything you do.

It's not that far off how it is now.

Can't step out of my house without 6 CCTV cameras watching me.

Well that's it then. They used the 'think of the children' argument........we're all fucked!

Rawne1980:
I'm waiting for the day when the pass the law to have some git follow you around recording everything you do.

It's not that far off how it is now.

Can't step out of my house without 6 CCTV cameras watching me.

just out of interest assuming your not doing anything illegal and you cant be seen while on your own property why are you bothered by being on CCTV? because i personally dont mind

OT: how i feel on the law
image

xSKULLY:

Rawne1980:
I'm waiting for the day when the pass the law to have some git follow you around recording everything you do.

It's not that far off how it is now.

Can't step out of my house without 6 CCTV cameras watching me.

just out of interest assuming your not doing anything legal and you cant be seen while on your own property why are you bothered by being on CCTV? because i personally dont mind

Because there are those days, when friends visit and you have one too many sniffs of shandy, that I end up stark bollock nekkid and running around the streets.

Now, thanks to CCTV, I can no longer deny that it is my shiny milk bottle coloured arse running past the camera.

Rawne1980:

xSKULLY:

Rawne1980:
I'm waiting for the day when the pass the law to have some git follow you around recording everything you do.

It's not that far off how it is now.

Can't step out of my house without 6 CCTV cameras watching me.

just out of interest assuming your not doing anything legal and you cant be seen while on your own property why are you bothered by being on CCTV? because i personally dont mind

Because there are those days, when friends visit and you have one too many sniffs of shandy, that I end up stark bollock nekkid and running around the streets.

Now, thanks to CCTV, I can no longer deny that it is my shiny milk bottle coloured arse running past the camera.

You know what scared me about CCTV? How fucking fast the police catch onto everything. Not sure if thats a positive or a negative thing. Mixed feelings really. In Hereford it was like - doing something you shouldnt be, ranging from littering to stabbing someone? 5 seconds later a police car pulls up next to you. It was downright freaky at times.

OT: Yeah, I remember the time my planned killing spree was thwarted because the police monitored me while I googled "big tits".

I guess it might help them stop the most stupid criminals, but lets say you are planning to build a bomb - do you really just head to askjeeves and type "How to build a bomb"? Cmon son.

Private Custard:
Well that's it then. They used the 'think of the children' argument........we're all fucked!

QFT.

Seriously though, I don't have a problem with these laws in their current form - I generally don't use the internet for illegal activities, and have no real issues with the government knowing about how fucked up the porn I watch is.(Really, Really fucked up).

Of note - it's not illegal (as an example) to look up how to build a bomb, simply having that knowlege is not, in itself, against the law... But I'd feel a lot better if I knew that the people who DO look that stuff up (including myself) get checked out by... I dunno, the Gestapo? (what do we have in the UK?... I'll google that motherfucker right after this)... That way, I can look the knowledge up knowing I'll be ok, whilst Mohammed Al-Shabab Hussein-Quaida down the road will get a knock on his door asking why he's been googling that, and also buying up the entire town supply of ammonium nitrate.

Same with the CCTV bollocks... But then again, my area is one where the police are actually not bad guys and they go after actual crooks, instead of people who litter and occasionally run naked through the streets (as I've been known to do on the occasional friday or saturday night)... However I can see how jobsworth dickhead coppers can ruin that for everyone if they so please.

Back on the Internet legislation - This could be a first step down the road to big brotherhood, I say we build our barricades on the 2nd step, rather than piecemeal trying to deal with this bollocks which the government managed to sneak in relatively quickly.

Finally: Googled that stuff from earlier: Turns out the CID are our Gestapo, without quite as much evil though.

Stu35:

Finally: Googled that stuff from earlier: Turns out the CID are our Gestapo, without quite as much evil though.

Lies! It's Special Branch, because their name is cooler!

Seriously though, this law is irrelevant because it's going to get taken straight to the European Court of Human Rights and absolutely owned.

Stu35:
I say we build our barricades on the 2nd step, rather than piecemeal trying to deal with this bollocks which the government managed to sneak in relatively quickly

Uh....If you let them take the first step, they will think they can take the second. This kind of thing needs to be fought at EVERY step to make sure it doesn't start.

I'm not willing to risk a slippery slope happening over this. :s

They won't spy on normal people, just the murderers, terrorists and peados?
How do they know who to spy on without spying on us?

Petition here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32400

Its grown 3000 signatures since I signed it this morning. Its a bad fucking joke; the world would be safer if we were all locked in 5 x 5 sheds and weren't allowed out, that doesn't mean we should do it.

I can see this going the way of America's Patriot Act - claim its for terrorism, then use it for other stuff as well (I think its used in drugs cases most of the time).

It was kicked out before, it should be kicked out again.

And I wish the Conservatives would stop using "think of the children!" for EVERY fucking bill they propose.

^ Thank you, I signed it.

Woodsey:
Petition here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32400

Its grown 3000 signatures since I signed it this morning. Its a bad fucking joke; the world would be safer if we were all locked in 5 x 5 sheds and weren't allowed out, that doesn't mean we should do it.

I can see this going the way of America's Patriot Act - claim its for terrorism, then use it for other stuff as well (I think its used in drugs cases most of the time).

It was kicked out before, it should be kicked out again.

And I wish the Conservatives would stop using "think of the children!" for EVERY fucking bill they propose.

I love the way that, in order to sign the petition opposing being monitored further, you need to provide to the Govt. a valid email address, and your actual address. all the better to allow tracking as a potential troublemaker, i suppose..

deakin_j:

Woodsey:
Petition here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32400

Its grown 3000 signatures since I signed it this morning. Its a bad fucking joke; the world would be safer if we were all locked in 5 x 5 sheds and weren't allowed out, that doesn't mean we should do it.

I can see this going the way of America's Patriot Act - claim its for terrorism, then use it for other stuff as well (I think its used in drugs cases most of the time).

It was kicked out before, it should be kicked out again.

And I wish the Conservatives would stop using "think of the children!" for EVERY fucking bill they propose.

I love the way that, in order to sign the petition opposing being monitored further, you need to provide to the Govt. a valid email address, and your actual address. all the better to allow tracking as a potential troublemaker, i suppose..

... So, I'll be out of the country for a while. If anyone wants to contact me th

Rawne1980:
I'm waiting for the day when the pass the law to have some git follow you around recording everything you do.

It's not that far off how it is now.

Can't step out of my house without 6 CCTV cameras watching me.

see this is the part of the anti-cctv thing i don't get.

You know who's watching you, nobody, the most the average person will be seen on a cctv is glimpses, unless your doing something massively noticeable your not important.

To think that anyone has the ego that they are more interesting than not only all the information that camera gets, but usually six or more others, that is just staggeringly big headed.

Heres the big secret, they don't care about you.

deakin_j:

Woodsey:
Petition here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32400

Its grown 3000 signatures since I signed it this morning. Its a bad fucking joke; the world would be safer if we were all locked in 5 x 5 sheds and weren't allowed out, that doesn't mean we should do it.

I can see this going the way of America's Patriot Act - claim its for terrorism, then use it for other stuff as well (I think its used in drugs cases most of the time).

It was kicked out before, it should be kicked out again.

And I wish the Conservatives would stop using "think of the children!" for EVERY fucking bill they propose.

I love the way that, in order to sign the petition opposing being monitored further, you need to provide to the Govt. a valid email address, and your actual address. all the better to allow tracking as a potential troublemaker, i suppose..

So you use a fake address and a spam email account. Bam.

I don't see how the Conservatives are going to get in after this. Frankly, i can't see how anyone is getting in after this. Time to learn Swedish, I think.

bahumat42:

Rawne1980:
I'm waiting for the day when the pass the law to have some git follow you around recording everything you do.

It's not that far off how it is now.

Can't step out of my house without 6 CCTV cameras watching me.

see this is the part of the anti-cctv thing i don't get.

You know who's watching you, nobody, the most the average person will be seen on a cctv is glimpses, unless your doing something massively noticeable your not important.

To think that anyone has the ego that they are more interesting than not only all the information that camera gets, but usually six or more others, that is just staggeringly big headed.

Heres the big secret, they don't care about you.

To me its not about them looking at what i am doing its who is going to hold the power to decide what you are doing is a crime like for example.

"John here likes looking at satanic sites. That offends me as a pure christian so i will have him arrested and the content he is looking at banned."

Its not the law i don't trust its the people who are watching.

Or another example:

Say for instance they have to read prince Harry's Facebook because you know the law apply to royals to you know and they guy sees a private message to one of his mates saying he knocked up a commoner what if the guy "leeks" that info to the press for a bit of gold in his pocket.

makano:

bahumat42:

Rawne1980:
I'm waiting for the day when the pass the law to have some git follow you around recording everything you do.

It's not that far off how it is now.

Can't step out of my house without 6 CCTV cameras watching me.

see this is the part of the anti-cctv thing i don't get.

You know who's watching you, nobody, the most the average person will be seen on a cctv is glimpses, unless your doing something massively noticeable your not important.

To think that anyone has the ego that they are more interesting than not only all the information that camera gets, but usually six or more others, that is just staggeringly big headed.

Heres the big secret, they don't care about you.

To me its not about them looking at what i am doing its who is going to hold the power to decide what you are doing is a crime like for example.

"John here likes looking at satanic sites. That offends me as a pure christian so i will have him arrested and the content he is looking at banned."

Its not the law i don't trust its the people who are watching.

Or another example:

Say for instance they have to read prince Harry's Facebook because you know the law apply to royals to you know and they guy sees a private message to one of his mates saying he knocked up a commoner what if the guy "leeks" that info to the press for a bit of gold in his pocket.

you misread me entirely, i have no qualms with being anti this particular law, i was just pointing the absurdity of worrying about cctv, because cctv really isnt a big deal and does help get people in jail.

TrilbyWill:
They won't spy on normal people, just the murderers, terrorists and peados?
How do they know who to spy on without spying on us?

"Theresa May argued that the new powers were required to "help police stay one step ahead of the criminals" and vowed "ordinary people" would not be targeted.

Mrs May said: "Looking at who a suspect talks to can lead police to other criminals. Whole paedophile rings, criminal conspiracies and terrorist plots can then be smashed.""

So you had better hope no one criminal communicates in anyway with you as you are not classed as 'ordinary' and above surveillance any more by her logic. People should add their priests to email block lists for starters.....

Rawne1980:

Can't step out of my house without 6 CCTV cameras watching me.

I dunno, as many cameras I have been hearing about in the UK, makes you wish you had a long range rifle so they can be taken out with ease without leaving a direct trace. Enough of em go down they stop putting them back up.

Well those same snoopers also lead to the Spanner case.

For those unfamiliar: The spanner case consisted of the police somehow laying their hands on people's private sex tape, leading to a huge crackdown, arrests and eventually the conviction in 1997 of men who were into bdsm-related homosexual sex, widely regarded as a political trial because the men didn't stick to Christian sexual morals. What other reason would there be to pursue an assault case where the victims themselves are indicted and at the same time demanding the perpretrator, their lover, be left alone?

With the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007, the UK government cited the persecution of homosexuals like in the Spanner Case as a reason why bdsm porn should become a criminal offense, like the persecution was a good thing instead of an international outrage.


I'd say more of that is on the way. As demonstrated, the bigotry to do so exists. Police and prosecutors (or is that persecuters?) shouldn't be given the tools to go after people in such a case.

bahumat42:

Rawne1980:
I'm waiting for the day when the pass the law to have some git follow you around recording everything you do.

It's not that far off how it is now.

Can't step out of my house without 6 CCTV cameras watching me.

see this is the part of the anti-cctv thing i don't get.

You know who's watching you, nobody, the most the average person will be seen on a cctv is glimpses, unless your doing something massively noticeable your not important.

To think that anyone has the ego that they are more interesting than not only all the information that camera gets, but usually six or more others, that is just staggeringly big headed.

Heres the big secret, they don't care about you.

12 houses on the street, 6 CCTV cameras.

I'm not saying i'm interesting enough to watch but the camera to people ratio is a tad excessive.

And I AM incredibly big headed. I have a large ego and i'm incredibly vain .... problem with that?

Stu35:

Finally: Googled that stuff from earlier: Turns out the CID are our Gestapo, without quite as much evil though.

Hardly... they are completely reactive, not proactive... they investigate crimes allready committed, not ones that are going to be committed...

You are confusing them with BSS. (Security Services- the B stands for British, but is only used in the acronym, for obvious reasons...)

It's like Arizona, the US, Tennessee, and the UK are all locked up in a stupidest law race.

Signed it.

GMHQ has no place tapping a private citizen's communications without a court-issued warrant. Yes the government should be able to spy on the internet communications of people suspected of serious crime but only under due process.

As for the suggestion that unlimited web surveillance would have stopped Ian Huntley, that's utter tabloid bullshit. He committed previous sexual offences but was never charged for them. He did not perpetrate his crimes using the internet.

bahumat42:

Rawne1980:
I'm waiting for the day when the pass the law to have some git follow you around recording everything you do.

It's not that far off how it is now.

Can't step out of my house without 6 CCTV cameras watching me.

see this is the part of the anti-cctv thing i don't get.

You know who's watching you, nobody, the most the average person will be seen on a cctv is glimpses, unless your doing something massively noticeable your not important.

To think that anyone has the ego that they are more interesting than not only all the information that camera gets, but usually six or more others, that is just staggeringly big headed.

Heres the big secret, they don't care about you.

What makes it ok for you? Is it that it's a camera and not a person? If a person was watching me all the time, i'd feel a little creeped out. A camera still gives me the same feeling.

Signed.

I won't resort to using a slippry slope fallacy, so I'll just say that it's an idea that I doubt will be implemented correctly.

Well not to sound like a douche but i made a thread about this...

OT: They are using the classic "Think of the children" and "If you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide" argument to bludgeon anyone who criticises it as a paedophile or terrorist. And don't worry if it doesn't get passed today or tomorrow it will eventually.

viranimus:
I dunno, as many cameras I have been hearing about in the UK, makes you wish you had a long range rifle so they can be taken out with ease without leaving a direct trace. Enough of em go down they stop putting them back up.

It really depends where you go, there's absolutely fuck all cameras where I live. Even in the big cities where you get lots of them it's mostly in the town centres, high streets etc not residential areas, unless they are particularly high crime areas. They don't just stick them up everywhere, only places they expect trouble.

Also, if you go round firing off something like that where you aren't meant to (read about 95% of the UK)they will make a very special effort to track you down and put you away for a long time. Also a long range rifle would be fairly redundant for it anyway, it's not like you could really get to use the range, too many buildings in the way. Only way for the direct action approach to work is the way the French do for speed cameras, half the population sneak out and smash them up in the middle of the night, some sort of mask/hood would be helpful seeing as it's CCTV but the principle is the same.

Flimsii:
Well not to sound like a douche but i made a thread about this...

OT: They are using the classic "Think of the children" and "If you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide" argument to bludgeon anyone who criticises it as a paedophile or terrorist. And don't worry if it doesn't get passed today or tomorrow it will eventually.

I know a few people have made threads about this. I just wanted to attack it from the predictable 'think of the children' argument being used. I did not want to duplicate, just to ridicule the Home Sec's stupid comments.

I despise the 'let us pass this law or it will be peadoggedon!' argument. It is the go to when you have no legitimate reasons to argue with.

ph0b0s123:

Flimsii:
Well not to sound like a douche but i made a thread about this...

OT: They are using the classic "Think of the children" and "If you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide" argument to bludgeon anyone who criticises it as a paedophile or terrorist. And don't worry if it doesn't get passed today or tomorrow it will eventually.

I know a few people have made threads about this. I just wanted to attack it from the predictable 'think of the children' argument being used. I did not want to duplicate, just to ridicule the Home Sec's stupid comments.

I despise the 'let us pass this law or it will be peadoggedon!' argument. It is the go to when you have no legitimate reasons to argue with.

Yes and i completely agree. Tbh i shouldn't have made an issue of it seeing as we completely agree. George Carlin does an amazing rant about how society is ruining children and childhood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo2Y4PzTCOc

Yeah. (When did The Sun become anything to talk about seriously?)

Cuz web monitoring makes people into sad pandas...

Why does the gov. want sad pandas?

Cuz Pandas are going to be extinct!!!!1!1!!1! WHAT ABOUT THE PANDAS!

wut?

How has gov. monitoring the web hurt you? Or is it just a knee jerk reaction/conspiracy theory/ I HATE CHANGE, thing?

For the love of God, and all that's Holy... think about the Pandas!?

Stu35:

Private Custard:
Well that's it then. They used the 'think of the children' argument........we're all fucked!

QFT.

Seriously though, I don't have a problem with these laws in their current form - I generally don't use the internet for illegal activities, and have no real issues with the government knowing about how fucked up the porn I watch is.(Really, Really fucked up).

How about when one item of porn you looked at turns out to be illegal and you end up on the sex offender's register? There is a lot of porn in this country that is illegal, much of which you would think is fine.

I for one do not want the government having that sort of power.

Ok think of it like this.

If you dont want this, get into politics, get some like-minded political allies, get elected, then have theese laws revoked.

Its a democracy, not an empire. People only get to do this because people gave them the power to do so, and they can give you the power to undo it too.

And while youre at it do something about political correctness and health and safety laws.

gigastar:
Ok think of it like this.

If you dont want this, get into politics, get some like-minded political allies, get elected, then have theese laws revoked.

Its a democracy, not an empire. People only get to do this because people gave them the power to do so, and they can give you the power to undo it too.

And while youre at it do something about political correctness and health and safety laws.

You think any independant parties have ANY chance of gaining momentum.

I feel this is very relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

Getting into politics is a waste of time for those who actually want to change anything. The only parties that survive are those supported by corporations.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked